United States Confederate Statues, symbols, and memorials debate thread

[Edgeplay_cgo]

Someone needs to invent a bot that links to all the white supremacists rationales for the war that riled up poor whites to fight for rich plantation owners

First off I want a citation for that.

For what? I believe I read the essay story on Drudge, echoed from the Chicago Tribune. The NBF stuff came from a number of Internet sites, some of which were undoubtably biased, but contained historical stuff that can be checked. I seldom do citations.

Second off, what's your point? Collaborators and ignorant people always turn up.

My point, as I stated it, is that the peribellum era is very complex, and cannot be reduced to slogans and banners.

Thirdly, I don't know why you can't eat while free

I never said that free people can't eat. My waistline is testimony to that. But think about it; eating is not guaranteed. There was a lot of fear among slaves that, "How will we get by when we're free?" They had no experience out in the economy. The same sentiments apparently exist to some extent among those enslaved by welfare.

Fourthly it makes sense that some freedmen wouldn't like the end of slavery, they would no longer be above other blacks in highly segregated areas.

And more to the point they would have no job security. We saw the same thing with the Osties, and to a lesser extent with male NORK refugees., and they had no one to lord it over. There is no "one size fits all" answer, much though we would like it to be.

 

[Big Steve]

Let's be honest, their fear was also that with slavery ended and their status as property (potentially property for freedmen, since racist whites would have to be careful) gone, one of the only real barriers to poor white lynch mobs torturing and murdering them on slight suspicions was gone. A worry that I think later history proved depressingly accurate.

 

[HistoryMinor]

For what? I believe I read the essay story on Drudge, echoed from the Chicago Tribune. The NBF stuff came from a number of Internet sites, some of which were undoubtably biased, but contained historical stuff that can be checked. I seldom do citations.



My point, as I stated it, is that the peribellum era is very complex, and cannot be reduced to slogans and banners.



I never said that free people can't eat. My waistline is testimony to that. But think about it; eating is not guaranteed. There was a lot of fear among slaves that, "How will we get by when we're free?" They had no experience out in the economy. The same sentiments apparently exist to some extent among those enslaved by welfare.



And more to the point they would have no job security. We saw the same thing with the Osties, and to a lesser extent with male NORK refugees., and they had no one to lord it over. There is no "one size fits all" answer, much though we would like it to be.

Lol welfare.

Maybe we should pay more attention to the generations of brainwashing and constant condemnation of runaways before regurgitating obvious far right soundbites. Sure, there were slaves afraid of freedom. There were also Jews afraid to leave Nazi Germany and Indians who trusted treaties, look at how that turned out for them.

 

[Nitramy]

My two cents on this is:

Why bring them down? The entire suite of Confederate symbology should be kept as a cautionary tale. Remove that and we run the risk of repeating past mistakes.

Also, I notice that the loudest campaigners for destroying Confederate symbology are either eerily quiet or yelling "THAT'S THEIR CULTURE YOU ANTI-SEMITIC JEW-HATING ISLAMOPHOBE XENOPHOBE BIGOT REEEEEEEEEEEE" when the role of Jews and Arabs in the slave trade are pointed out. Heck, you can even watch their brains start blue-screening when the fact that white people started the abolishing of slavery not because of pressure from purple-haired black bloc activists, but because it was the right thing to do.

White Guilt is a hell of a drug, and you'd think they'd keep the symbols of their mistakes up as proof that they won't do this shit again. Unfortunately...

 

[Deleted member 1]

People largely ignore the Readjuster Party, but it was America’s first and sadly perhaps only really successful pan-racial coalition. If someone had put up a statue of William Mahone in his guise as a Confederate General before he went on to help found it, would that need to be taken down? Or would his subsequent conduct clarify his beliefs and make him acceptable? And how do you decide?

I am sympathetic to the treason argument, because it’s true and honourable. But it’s not the real reason these statues are being taken down, The advocates don’t care about treason. Northern conservatives make mock of themselves by implying otherwise.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Another issue is where do we stop? People consider its an issue of simply statues, but like I've said the south is full of places that are essentially historical sites and have a similar problematic history. Are they next on the list? Should the south be forced to dismantle any site with a problematic history and remove it iconography? Does anyone realize just how much its going to effect these places?

And no I don't consider it a stretch, all of the things discussed here apply as well to these sites as well. Its a logical expansion to the same logic and lets be honest, only not being discussed yet becuase either someone knows about this and wants to get the statues removed first. Or simply have no clue about this state of affairs. But what is the point to be morally crusading over some statues when they finally hear of some other tourist site in the South that offends them?

 

[Big Steve]

That's why I specified protecting historical sites. History is important.

But not every memorial is historical, it's also cultural, especially those erected to reinforce the racial system of the South when it came under attack.

People largely ignore the Readjuster Party, but it was America’s first and sadly perhaps only really successful pan-racial coalition. If someone had put up a statue of William Mahone in his guise as a Confederate General before he went on to help found it, would that need to be taken down? Or would his subsequent conduct clarify his beliefs and make him acceptable? And how do you decide?

I am sympathetic to the treason argument, because it’s true and honourable. But it’s not the real reason these statues are being taken down, The advocates don’t care about treason. Northern conservatives make mock of themselves by implying otherwise.

I really need to read up on the Readjuster Party. And I'd say leave the statue up. If necessary, just add to the attached plaques the story of his role in said party and other actions. I'd even give the same to Forrest. "He made the KKK but repented of it and later became an advocate for the rights of the freedmen." works for me. Doesn't glorify the bad bits for political reasons, doesn't forget history.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

That's why I specified protecting historical sites. History is important.

But not every memorial is historical, it's also cultural, especially those erected to reinforce the racial system of the South when it came under attack.

Can you define the two? One could argue the entire united states is historical, we are hundreds of years old after all. Many places try to balance the need to preserve the site with the fact its still in use in some fashion. There is plenty of places where its historical, cultural, and economical. Which factor should we give precedence for?

Also I find a problem with the logic that its cultural, lets assume for the sake of argument you are right. That these monuments are still reinforcing the racial system, then how would they get removed in the first place? If the city or area was still "racist" then they are not going to vote to remove those symbols of racism. And if they are not and do so, then its clear the monuments have failed in their duty and are not actually influencing anything and are harmless on a cultural front, and only "exist" on the historical/economic side of the argument.

 

[Edgeplay_cgo]

Lol welfare.

Maybe we should pay more attention to the generations of brainwashing and constant condemnation of runaways before regurgitating obvious far right soundbites. Sure, there were slaves afraid of freedom. There were also Jews afraid to leave Nazi Germany and Indians who trusted treaties, look at how that turned out for them.

It's easy and lazy to throw bombs like, "regurgitating obvious far right soundbites." Yes, I presume those people were a minority, but does that mean they should be stomped into the oblivion of one dimensional shrieking?

 

[Big Steve]

It's easy and lazy to throw bombs like, "regurgitating obvious far right soundbites." Yes, I presume those people were a minority, but does that mean they should be stomped into the oblivion of one dimensional shrieking?

The problem is that even though there were likely a minority like that, some play them up as a majority or a significant minority when they usually weren't. And it coincides with antebellum slaveowner propaganda about content slaves who didn't want to be free because they were happy to be slaves. I highly recommend William Freehling's The Road to Disunion, specifically the first volume, since he spends multiple chapters delving into the mechanics of Southern society, its proposed ideal state and what we know of its real states (since black slaves were mostly illiterate and left few memoirs for us to get their side).

Can you define the two? One could argue the entire united states is historical, we are hundreds of years old after all. Many places try to balance the need to preserve the site with the fact its still in use in some fashion. There is plenty of places where its historical, cultural, and economical. Which factor should we give precedence for?

Also I find a problem with the logic that its cultural, lets assume for the sake of argument you are right. That these monuments are still reinforcing the racial system, then how would they get removed in the first place? If the city or area was still "racist" then they are not going to vote to remove those symbols of racism. And if they are not and do so, then its clear the monuments have failed in their duty and are not actually influencing anything and are harmless on a cultural front, and only "exist" on the historical/economic side of the argument.

Battle sites would fall under historical. Monuments to the men who fought there can explore more of why the battle was fought, the motivations in the leaders and their armies. While there is potential for inappropriate glorification, it is offset by the educational opportunity among other factors.

Museums, likewise, are meant to be educational. They're monuments to the past. Therefore they also fall under historical, although they also have clear cultural intentions as well.

Cemeteries are for the internment of the dead and the preservation of the memory they existed. Can still be educational and is inherently historic, plus it is hallowed ground and cultural taboos against the desecration of resting sites should be sustained.

Statues in grand plazas, however, or public parks meant for recreation, or in front of important government buildings (executive branch offices, capital buildings, courthouses, etc.), are meant for memorialization. They can potentially have historic value, but their primary purpose is to tie the monument to the present state. To glorify the person or persons being memorialized as a standard for the people today to admire and aspire to.

To use the Forrest issue, while my initial reaction was to support his re-internment elsewhere, I would be satisfied if his memorial and such in Memphis made it clear he was being memorialized for turning away from his misdeeds (and crimes) of the past and trying to heal racial divisions. We shouldn't whitewash (heh) the misdeeds of historical figures, especially if they were considered wrong even for their times, but we should also be ready to acknowledge when they tried to improve, to change. Forrest didn't go as far as he could (reportedly he hemmed and hawed before Congress on the KKK, having left the organization but not cooperating with identifying remaining members) but he still went farther than others, and he tried to do good, and that should be recognized too.

The problem I have is that while I agree history shouldn't be erased, the Lost Cause still has a grip on people (witness Texas' decisions regarding the curriculum on the ACW), and these kinds of monuments in public places were made, in whole or in part, to glorify the Lost Cause and preach it to the populace. It is a great historical lie and it must be confronted, not pardoned in the mistaken belief that removing its fruits is "forgetting history".

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Statues in grand plazas, however, or public parks meant for recreation, or in front of important government buildings (executive branch offices, capital buildings, courthouses, etc.), are meant for memorialization. They can potentially have historic value, but their primary purpose is to tie the monument to the present state. To glorify the person or persons being memorialized as a standard for the people today to admire and aspire to.

Except many of these buildings and parks actually fall into historical sites, which is why they are called "historic downtowns" to the point where they preserve at least the original appearance of the stone roads and offer horse rides. Savannah Georgia's downtown is built into the original port section of the town and has many historical monuments built into the place. And while probably the most obvious example many other cities try to keep as many historical sites within them as similar as possible to their original appearance.

To use the Forrest issue, while my initial reaction was to support his re-internment elsewhere, I would be satisfied if his memorial and such in Memphis made it clear he was being memorialized for turning away from his misdeeds (and crimes) of the past and trying to heal racial divisions.

Memphis is a good example, as many of the original buildings and historical sites are maintained inside the city. Who are we to decide what parts are historical and what are not?

The problem I have is that while I agree history shouldn't be erased, the Lost Cause still has a grip on people (witness Texas' decisions regarding the curriculum on the ACW), and these kinds of monuments in public places were made, in whole or in part, to glorify the Lost Cause and preach it to the populace. It is a great historical lie and it must be confronted, not pardoned in the mistaken belief that removing its fruits is "forgetting history".

If you actually manage to take these sites down, then you are totally overestimating the impact and reach of these lies and causes in the first place. And if you are not then you shouldn't be able to take them down. And I don't see how attacking the monuments weakens the Lost Cause at any rate. The whole issue with ideological causes is that being ideological they tend to grow in strength in response to be prosecuted not weaken.

So in effect it won't really affect the Lost Cause any unless to strengthen it, so in reality is this to help weaken it? Or do you see it as an attempt to strengthen your side? Is this simply a cause to demonstrate social-political power even at the cost of historical and economic well being of other places and possibly inflaming support for the causes you purpose to fight?

 

[Big Steve]

Except many of these buildings and parks actually fall into historical sites, which is why they are called "historic downtowns" to the point where they preserve at least the original appearance of the stone roads and offer horse rides. Savannah Georgia's downtown is built into the original port section of the town and has many historical monuments built into the place. And while probably the most obvious example many other cities try to keep as many historical sites within them as similar as possible to their original appearance.

Most of the monuments I'm talking about aren't contemporary with the start of these areas, they're later additions. And if removing them would in some way damage the locality and diminish its historical value (which I'm skeptical of), then my other option comes into play: plaques explaining the historical context.

Memphis is a good example, as many of the original buildings and historical sites are maintained inside the city. Who are we to decide what parts are historical and what are not?

Who else does? Historical commissions can (and could preferably rule on the historical value of a monument), but they can just as easily be accused of agendas as anyone else.

If you actually manage to take these sites down, then you are totally overestimating the impact and reach of these lies and causes in the first place. And if you are not then you shouldn't be able to take them down. And I don't see how attacking the monuments weakens the Lost Cause at any rate. The whole issue with ideological causes is that being ideological they tend to grow in strength in response to be prosecuted not weaken.

So in effect it won't really affect the Lost Cause any unless to strengthen it, so in reality is this to help weaken it? Or do you see it as an attempt to strengthen your side? Is this simply a cause to demonstrate social-political power even at the cost of historical and economic well being of other places and possibly inflaming support for the causes you purpose to fight?

For one thing, as a reminder, I'm not calling for the destruction of monuments, I'm calling for their relocation to historical spaces if their current placement is more about being a memorial or glorification. If moving them is still "persecution" of the Lost Cause, well, I think it shows their real motivation isn't protecting history, it's trying to display lingering social power.

And I find the argument that success is proof that the Lost Cause is too weak and is being overestimated, because otherwise the Lost Cause would be too powerful for success to happen, to be specious. Just look at the Forrest memorial case in Memphis. The city wanted to remove it, the state interfered, the city found a way to do it anyway within the confines of the law, the state punished them by withdrawing some state funding. While I can't speak for the motivations of all the state officials involved, I find it unlikely they weren't motivated by the Lost Cause "heritage" arguments in at least some cases.

Removing memorials based on a distortion of history, or altering them to correct the distortion, is not the same as destroying history, nor is it persecution. It is correcting the record and removing glorification of lies and distortions. That's my purpose. That it's really some attempt to "demonstrate" socio-political power against a weak foe, as you seem to be implying, is certainly an emotionally appealing way to try to turn the tables, but it's self-serving. To claim it would undermine the "historical and economic well-being" of places is... I mean, like I said, I'd go out of my way to avoid collateral damage, but it also sounds like you're claiming that changing or eliminating memorials to the Confederacy will reduce tourism or otherwise damage local economies. Which, if you think about it, sounds like an admission that the Lost Cause is hardly so helpless and weak.

 

[Cyan Saiyajin]

Most of the monuments I'm talking about aren't contemporary with the start of these areas, they're later additions. And if removing them would in some way damage the locality and diminish its historical value (which I'm skeptical of), then my other option comes into play: plaques explaining the historical context.

Yes but are later additions not historical? To use Memphis as a example many places commemorate Elvis Presley, should they not be considered a part of the history of a city because he came much later?

And why are you skeptical? When was the last time you visited a southern city? Charleston? Savannah? Or even places like Memphis? A lot of places are helped defined by artwork and historical sites though-out the area.

Who else does? Historical commissions can (and could preferably rule on the historical value of a monument), but they can just as easily be accused of agendas as anyone else.

Yes but I've been talking about your definition of historical not theirs. Memphis is a good example because much like other cities it has a large range of historical architecture and tourism based on that. The main issue is deciding what is actually historical and what is not fairly. We can't just say something is any more or less historical based on how harmless we consider it to be.

For one thing, as a reminder, I'm not calling for the destruction of monuments, I'm calling for their relocation to historical spaces if their current placement is more about being a memorial or glorification. If moving them is still "persecution" of the Lost Cause, well, I think it shows their real motivation isn't protecting history, it's trying to display lingering social power.

That's assuming no one else is calling for these monuments to be destroyed at the same time isn't it? Its rather unfair to act like that is the only conversation taking place is one of moving them. And also we could argue that moving the monuments and other pieces of art and architecture is harmful to the areas they are being removed from. And again the monuments themselves are tip of the iceberg if we start to remove symbols of a harmful ideology from the entire south. Especially if we consider historical sites only as such if they are battlefields and museums.

And I find the argument that success is proof that the Lost Cause is too weak and is being overestimated, because otherwise the Lost Cause would be too powerful for success to happen, to be specious. Just look at the Forrest memorial case in Memphis. The city wanted to remove it, the state interfered, the city found a way to do it anyway within the confines of the law, the state punished them by withdrawing some state funding. While I can't speak for the motivations of all the state officials involved, I find it unlikely they weren't motivated by the Lost Cause "heritage" arguments in at least some cases.

So the arguments should be thrown out because maybe dishonest actors may be present? Honestly its easy to throw suspicion on a group of people for harmful ideological causes and dishonest motivations, I could do the same to your argument given enough thought. Ultimately does the idea of bad actors make the arguments any less logically sound? Or should we allow their destruction simply because bad people are also trying to protect them on top of logical and less politically motivated people?

Removing memorials based on a distortion of history, or altering them to correct the distortion, is not the same as destroying history, nor is it persecution. It is correcting the record and removing glorification of lies and distortions. That's my purpose.

If you are a 100% factually correct on the matter and no other perspective can be considered to be valid, then yes it is simply correcting history and removing distortions. If their is the slightest chance you are wrong, then it is at the very best historical revisionism and cultural-economic engineering. That is why such as actions should be carefully considered.

That it's really some attempt to "demonstrate" socio-political power against a weak foe, as you seem to be implying, is certainly an emotionally appealing way to try to turn the tables, but it's self-serving.

I'm glad you see it that way. The implication was a mirror to how I feel this conversation continues to evolve with you. I was show casing that arguments like yours can have just as many bad implications if all we are going to do is be suspicious of someone's motivations in arguing for or against some contentious topic.

To claim it would undermine the "historical and economic well-being" of places is... I mean, like I said, I'd go out of my way to avoid collateral damage, but it also sounds like you're claiming that changing or eliminating memorials to the Confederacy will reduce tourism or otherwise damage local economies. Which, if you think about it, sounds like an admission that the Lost Cause is hardly so helpless and weak.

Well yes it will damage tourism, The Civil War, The Revolutionary War, the Civil Rights Movement, famous musician birthplaces and hangouts, famous shoot outs, famous hauntings, preserved plantations, pirate coves, so and so forth, the South has a deep economic tie with it past in many different periods good and bad. I'm afraid you need more than just dislike for one part of said past to prove its somehow more sinisterly motivated in this particular case.

Edit: Let me be less of an arse here and I apologize if that came off as aggressive. I meant to say that I feel that the South does benefit from Civil War tourism and art as a whole along with many other historical tourism, and that your framing it as "The Confederacy" plays into personal feelings, not necessarily the whole picture. America is still very much fascinated with the Civil War as a whole and tourism does receive a tremendous benefit because of it.

 

[Deleted member 1]

@Cyan Saiyajin , I am sympathetic to your position though I do believe that, in fairness to Steve, he is, in fact, a Southerner. Florida, but from the part that's still culturally Southern.

 

[Big Steve]

@Cyan Saiyajin , I am sympathetic to your position though I do believe that, in fairness to Steve, he is, in fact, a Southerner. Florida, but from the part that's still culturally Southern.

To elaborate, I was born in DeLand, FL, and raised in Osteen and then Sanford, which are towns/cities north of Orlando and generally considered part of the Orlando Metropolitan Area.

To avoid the risk of further bloating the discussion with half a dozen quoted segments, I'm going to trim to first principles.

I do not favor the destruction of monuments. I do favor that any memorial plaques at the site present facts not colored by biases. To use an example (recalled from a book I got from the library), there's a plaque in Alexandria, VA, commemorating the site of the first Union casualty of the war (or one of the first anyway), a young Union officer who was shot dead by the owner of a hotel when he entered with his troops to remove a Confederate flag. The owner was in turn shot down by the troops. From a historical standpoint, you'd at least have a plaque representing both, right? But not according to a book I read recently. (IIRC it was the one primarily about Lincoln's journeys to and from Washington, the latter of course being his remains being brought back to Springfield, although it might've been the one about Lee's letters, this is what I get for reading lots of books) The author found only a plaque commemorating the owner for being killed for defending his property from the Union. That is clearly a bias against the Union's side in the discussion.

In cases when a monument's placing has no inherent historic value and it cannot be effectively given one, if it was placed purely for ideological reasons at a site, then unless it has gained a noticeable economic or cultural value to the location, it can be relocated to a site where it would have historic value. Preferably this would only be done in extreme cases (indeed it might not be fitting to do it at all).

I might seem like I'm backtracking a bit, and perhaps I am. I'm trying to accommodate the logical arguments against harming local economies and causing expense against the need to not let mythologists and ideologues abuse memorialization as a means to spread historical fiction as truth. It may be as simple as issuing new plaques and pamphlets about such sites. OTOH, there may indeed be some sites so polluted by imagery and intent that it might be better, in the long run, to remove them, at the cost of short term damage. Because while I don't want to cause harm to communities, that can cut both ways; leaving historical lies alone to be presented as good things can be harmful too.

I mean, this does go into the wider issue of when it's permissible to destroy a monument. Was it wrong when, say, statues of Lenin and such were pulled down in Eastern Europe? Or when the iraqis cast down monuments to Hussein?

Might be something for another thread to discuss.

And now I will quote one bit of Cyan's last post.

If their is the slightest chance you are wrong, then it is at the very best historical revisionism and cultural-economic engineering. That is why such as actions should be carefully considered.

You're right. But in the case of the Lost Cause, the weight of historical evidence, of the actual words and writings and deeds of those who argued for and won secession, is pretty clear on the matter. They were out to protect slavery from a perceived threat. The closest State's Rights got to it was that it provided an emotional charge to bolster morale and support, and that it influenced the Middle South after shooting started at Sumter (started by the South I'll add) and Lincoln called for volunteers to put down a rebellion against Federal authority. The secessionists didn't prevail in those states until these events happened and they could spin it as Lincoln undermining the rights of a state to secede.

 

[Flintsteel]

Wanted: proof that the monuments were errected for racist reasons.

One of the huge reasons people give for pulling them down (or relocating) is that the monuments are racist. Yet I have never seen any actual proof of this claim.

The only "reason" I have seen given is the time period they were erected in - early 1900's (Jim Crow!) and 1960's (anti-Civil Rights!).

Both date periods, of course, have a far more likely explanation that is always ignored by those who want them destroyed: 50-year anniversary (and also when most of the generation that actually fought in the war started dying off), and 100-year anniversary.

Now, I don't doubt that some monuments were erected by segregationist for purely racist reasons - there certainly are enough of them. But that needs to be proven on a case by case basis, which is something I have never seen anyone do. Just "tear them down, because!"

 

[Big Steve]

Wanted: proof that the monuments were errected for racist reasons.

One of the huge reasons people give for pulling them down (or relocating) is that the monuments are racist. Yet I have never seen any actual proof of this claim.

The only "reason" I have seen given is the time period they were erected in - early 1900's (Jim Crow!) and 1960's (anti-Civil Rights!).

Both date periods, of course, have a far more likely explanation that is always ignored by those who want them destroyed: 50-year anniversary (and also when most of the generation that actually fought in the war started dying off), and 100-year anniversary.

Now, I don't doubt that some monuments were erected by segregationist for purely racist reasons - there certainly are enough of them. But that needs to be proven on a case by case basis, which is something I have never seen anyone do. Just "tear them down, because!"

That's why I've been calling for a case by case basis for any decision.

 

[Terthna]

What's that quote from that book series I hate? “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

I don't really care that the statues are there; what I do care about is the people who seem so desperate to tear them down.

 

[Comrade Clod]

Wanted: proof that the monuments were errected for racist reasons.

Well the easiest way of determing that is the period in which they were erected, where they were erected and whom by. Might some towns in the south be proud of their history and raise a statue of a local famous folk? Yeah, but why would California (Schools named after Robert E Lee), The district of Columbia (actual freaking stain class honouring some confederates), and Ohio (plaques statues etc) honour the confederates? Then of course theres the fact that most of these were made in the era of Jim Crow, and especially the early 20th century when Civil rights first started to become an issue.

 

[Flintsteel]

Well the easiest way of determing that is the period in which they were erected, where they were erected and whom by. Might some towns in the south be proud of their history and raise a statue of a local famous folk? Yeah, but why would California (Schools named after Robert E Lee), The district of Columbia (actual freaking stain class honouring some confederates), and Ohio (plaques statues etc) honour the confederates? Then of course theres the fact that most of these were made in the era of Jim Crow, and especially the early 20th century when Civil rights first started to become an issue.

...you fail at reading comprehension.